Oh, For Goodness Sake

Update: Subpoena quashed; motion denied with prejudice; Taitz sanctioned $4,000 to be paid to Occidental College. (Running total: $24,250.) More to follow.

–

This afternoon at 1:30PM, there is a rescheduled ex parte hearing in Taitz v. Obama (zombie), in Ocean Orange County Superior Court in California. Taitz, who has had, let’s just say, difficulties properly serving this one and that one in courts around the country, somehow managed to compel Occidental College in her own jurisdiction, and they’ve responded. It shouldn’t be too crowded; I don’t think anyone else has responded, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who was served with one sheet of paper by fax and told she could see the rest of the brief online. That’s our Orly for you.

Yesterday, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. made public an email she received from Occidental’s General Counsel, outlining the college’s position regarding her attempt to get an ex parte order from the court for the President’s student records:

Dr. Taitz,

This email confirms that I spoke with you via telephone on October 31, 2012 at approximately 1:40 p.m. In that conversation, I told you that I intend to appear tomorrow in Dept. C-19 of the Orange County Superior Court on behalf of Occidental College to oppose the ex parte application filed by you in case no 30-2012 00582135.

I told you that it is the College’s position that your application is without merit, frivolous, and warrants sanctions.

I would respectfully ask that you withdraw your application and not proceed with the scheduled hearing. Should you decide to do so, please advise me as soon as possible.

Respectfully,

Carl A. Botterud
General Counsel
OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE

She replied, in part, with the usual threats:

Your opposition will constitute Obstruction of Justice, Aiding and Abetting in the elections fraud in forgery and treason in allowing a foreign citizen to usurp the U.S. Presidency with an aid of forged IDs and usurp the civil rights of the U.S. citizens. I would highly recommend not to attempt intimidating me any further.

At any rate your opposition and your attempt of intimidation and your allegiance or lack of allegiance to the United States of America is duly noted.

So this might be a fun hearing and we will have a Fogbow court observer’s report later today.
Continue reading »

The Defense filed today in the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division:

10/29/2012 59 Joint ANSWER to Complaint ( Taitz First Amended Complaint) by Barak Hussein Obama, Obama for America, Nanci Pelosi.(Begley, Samuel) (Entered: 10/29/2012)

In which they said, aside from the word “deny”: “The complaint consists entirely of immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous matter, has been filed for an improper purpose, and should be stricken pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(f).”

It comes down to this:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, President Barack H. Obama, II, Representative Pelosi, Democratic Leader of the United States House of Representatives, and Obama For America respectfully request that their foregoing Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint be received and they hereby move the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, with prejudice, to assess all costs of this action to Plaintiffs, and to grant Defendants all such further relief as is deemed just and proper.

Defendants further respectfully request that this court assess attorney’s fees against Plaintiffs pursuant to the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act of 1988, FED. R. CIV. P. 11 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1927, for a wholly frivolous, unreasonable, vexatious and malicious complaint.

THIS the 29th day of October, 2012.

Respectfully submitted,
BARACK H. OBAMA, II
NANCY PELOSI
OBAMA FOR AMERICA

However, an interesting introduction is the charge against Taitz of “unclean hands”:

The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim the plaintiff has “unclean hands”. … The defendant must show that plaintiff misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. The wrongful conduct may be of a legal or moral nature, as long as it relates to the matter in issue.

It will be interesting to see what the “unclean hands” involves. I have an immediate suspicion, but no knowledge of the Defense’s thinking. The smearing of reputations of political opposition through exploitation of the courts, maybe. But those are just my wild ass guesses.

When asked about the concept as it relates to Taitz, lawyers at the Fogbow replied:

Raicha: Taitz is not bringing this complaint in good faith. She brings her frivolous complaints purely for political purposes, knowing she has neither standing nor evidence. That’s unclean hands.

TexasFilly: Well, take your pick. There are hundreds of acts by Taitz alone that constitute unclean hands. She is seeking injunctive relief, a remedy that lies in equity. Unclean hands make that remedy unavailable to her (and it’s unavailable for a multitude of other reasons as well).

It all suddenly gets a lot more interesting.

Continue reading »